 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| westcoast frame of mind Moderator |
 What do we think about 'Total Depravity'? |
Posted Feb 7, 2010; 4:44 pm |
|
My surfing other blogs has got me thinking about 'Total Depravity'? I'm wondering how Forum members view this doctrine.
How is it defined? What are it's origins? The Forum has been quiet lately and I thought this might be a topic of some interest.
I remember a young mother (from a Plymouth Brethren - calvinistic?) background speaking about a joke they would make to a young baby. "oh you wonderful little bundle of total depravity."
To start things off: here is an article on Total Depravity from Theopedia: Link and another from John Piper also called Total Depravity Link
I haven't studied this doctrine in depth so hope this thread will help me to sort things out. |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2833 posts |
| |
Posted Feb 7, 2010; 8:15 pm |
|
I agree that we are born total depraved in that sin permeates the core of our life but this does not make us utterly depraved. I believe there are still varying manifestations of goodness and levels of conscience in each individual as a result of being made in the image of God. However, none of this goodness and right living will save us without the regenerating work of God to enable us to believe in Christ. Humanism considers human beings to be basically good but I believe there is no part of us that is untouched by sin - there is none righteous, no not one - Romans 3:10-11.
Although most believers agree on total depravity in the sense that we are unable to save ourselves, there are differences in how we get out of that state. Do I have free will to make a choice/decision to accept the righteousness that Christ provides or does Christ change my heart and this causes me to chose His righteousness ? In what way is my total depravity, total inability ? If I lean toward a Calvinist view, then God chooses to save me and will cause this to happen. If Arminian, Gods allows me to have enough free will to chose to accept or reject His offer of salvation.
So, being totally depraved, IMO, is not being as bad as I could be and an unbeliever can be totally depraved but in many ways be a very good person, yet remain spiritually dead and not good enough to have eternal life. This is what often concerns me with believers sometimes promoting humanistic methods to make people better and not sharing that these improvements are still not adequate for their salvation. But thats another topic. |
|
|
|
| gay lynn voth Member Joined Jan 25, 2005 693 posts |
| |
Posted Feb 8, 2010; 1:35 pm |
|
A bit short of time these days but I did want to briefly address Westcoast's question.
1. There are three ways of thinking about the extent of human depravity. i) total, complete depravity that extends to every component of the human being: material and spiritual - no possibility of 'good' that is of a human genetic origin; ii) initial human goodness for each individual that becomes 'perverted' or distorted by the influence of evil as the individual matures and grows, making decisions that are both morally good and evil; iii) each human being is born with a 'knowledge of good and evil' - in other words the propensity to do, and to be influenced by, both good and evil. The impact or influence of both good and evil extends to every component of the human being. In other words, both good and evil are 'known' by each human being.
In brief and simple terms: 1) Born Bad without an inherent knowledge of Good (and perhaps God?); 2) Born Good with the ability to do either good and/or evil, referenced as 'human innocence'; 3) Born with an inherent 'knowledge of good and evil' with no possibility of remaining 'innocent' as one matures and develops a moral conscience - "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God".
Question: Which of these three does scripture reinforce. I believe it reinforces #3.
Sidenote: Jesus 'escapes' the 'no possibility of remaining innocent or righteous' by virtue of being "both human and divine" - the 'second Adam'. It is into His righteousness that we are 'adopted' and/or resurrected as 'new life', while remaining 'fully human' as ourselves, till we receive the resurrection gift of a 'new body'. Till then we bear the mark of the first Adam after the act of disobedience. We have the "knowledge of both good and evil" that leads to death. We are inherently powerless to overcome the full force of evil without the intervention of the Goodness and Power of God. Truly, we need a Savior and a Deliverer. Thanks be to God. |
|
|
|
| westcoast frame of mind Moderator |
| |
Posted Feb 8, 2010; 8:50 pm |
|
Thanks Sudsy and Gay Lynn – both helpful comments.
Sudsy – I’m not sure I can figure out the difference between Totally / Utterly (i.e. Totally depraved versus Utterly depraved)  but I like how you’ve outlined your thoughts.
And with Gay Lynn I think her option #3 “Born with an inherent 'knowledge of good and evil' with no possibility of remaining 'innocent' as one matures and develops a moral conscience - "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"..”
After reading Theopedia and Piper’s article I wondered about some of the folk we find on the pages of the Bible – the Centurion, the God-fearers who embraced Paul’s gospel, Rahab and Ruth. Maybe, a Calvinist would say that is the influence of ‘common grace.’
Perhaps the term: Total depravity should be changed to something like: The inability to do any ‘saving’ good work.
Anyway, I don’t have any doubt of ‘original sin’ in the sense of humanity's and my inclination towards sin. I'm sure much more could be said. |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2833 posts |
| |
Posted Feb 9, 2010; 12:06 pm |
|
For me 'utterly depraved' is more along the first view that Gay Lynn pointed out - ' 1) Born Bad without an inherent knowledge of Good (and perhaps God?)'. Although I think we are affected in all (total) areas of our thinking, feelings and will by sin to some degree, there still is an ability retained to a varying extent to do some good even though this good is not good enough when it comes to salvation.
I think when the scriptures say that there is no one that doeth good it is not saying that unbelievers cannot do good acts but rather that the good required for salvation is not the good resulting from these acts. It seems strange to see the good acts of certain atheists that are so much more Christ like than many Christians. I'm not sure I agree that these are just self motivated acts, they may be but could they also be just following their propensity to do good from a right motive even though they do not acknowledge that God has given them this desire ? On the other hand, Christians can do good acts for their own glory and wrong motivations. And Christians who know to do good but don't do it are also sinning. Interesting topic to ponder. |
|
|
|
| thursday Member Joined May 6, 2009 94 posts |
| |
Posted Feb 10, 2010; 4:41 pm |
|
Good topic West Coast!
I have often been fearful of what Gay Lynn identified as:
| Quote: | | total, complete depravity that extends to every component of the human being: material and spiritual - no possibility of 'good' that is of a human genetic origin |
This conviction expresses the view held by theological giants such as Calvin and Augustine. Although I haven't seen this here, I have often heard this option confused with its exagerrated and distorted form called "worm theology". Worm theology reflects the idea that humanity is so corrupt, vile, and repulsive that we are literally unlovable. In this model God is only capable of loving us when Jesus "gets in the way" as it were, between us and him. Thus when God looks at us, he only sees Jesus--and thus in a sense almost eliminates any individual worth of a human. As far as I can tell worm-theology doesn't have much if any support beyond the popular level. IMO It represents an misrepresented and unnuanced form of Calvinist theology. Although Calvin and Augustine did not believe that there was any goodness in humanity they did believe to varying degrees that God, by his grace has given them revealed knowledge of himself and goodness through nature, reason, Scripture, etc. However out of human depravity this knowledge is again corrupted. The cycle of endless grace thus begins.
Personally I identify most closely with option #3 presented by Gay Lynn. I too think it is most accurate to the Scriptures (what was that tree all about in the garden anyway???). However I do also appreciate the heavy emphasis on grace provided by Calvin and Augustine. Personally I believe that our knowledge of good and evil is so fudamental to being human that we sometimes cannot tell the difference between one or the other. I also tend to think that most good actions done by humans contains a "bad" element and vice versa. (Once again the exception is JEsus who was both human and divine  ). I therefore want to affirm Augustine and Calvin's emphasis on grace in the sense that humans are depraved to the extent that they are incapable of choosing good exclusively even when they want to.
By the way I'm not suggesting that Gay Lynn or others would suggest that we don't need grace to be good. I'm just tryng to make sure there are no "straw-men" present here...  |
|
|
|
|
|
